Chapman et al. v. Ginter

Chapman et al. v. Ginter

Respondent wrongfully attempted to repudiate the agreement, but the appellants did not elect to accept and communicate acceptance of that repudiation within a reasonable time; on the proved facts the proper inference is that both parties abandoned the agreement, so the respondent could not enforce the contract and the appropriate relief is dismissal of the respondent's action and declaration concerning the escrowed shares.

Citation
[1968] SCR 560
Parties
Defendant/appellant: Leon Everett Chapman; Defendant/appellant: Robert Jordan Keen; Plaintiff/respondent: Benjamin George Ginter
Court
Supreme Court of Canada
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
29 April 1968
Procedural Posture
Contract Appeal / Appeal to the Supreme Court of Canada From the Court of Appeal for British Columbia
Outcome
Appeal dismissed. Court agreed with Court of Appeal that respondent wrongfully attempted repudiation but appellants failed to accept and communicate acceptance within a reasonable time; both parties abandoned the agreement; appellants entitled to release of 175 escrowed shares and are not entitled to return of...
Legal Topics
Repudiation, Acceptance of Repudiation, Abandonment, Termination, Escrow, Remedies, Pleading Procedure
Source Language
English
Contract Repudiation Acceptance of Repudiation Abandonment Termination Escrow Remedies Pleading Procedure

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Legal principles 3 Authorities cited 3 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 5
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Leon Everett Chapman

Defendant/appellant

Robert Jordan Keen

Defendant/appellant

Benjamin George Ginter

Plaintiff/respondent

Procedural Posture

Contract Appeal / Appeal to the Supreme Court of Canada From the Court of Appeal for British Columbia

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the respondent's notices of January 2 and January 23, 1962 constituted a wrongful repudiation of the share purchase agreement
  2. 2 Whether the appellants elected to accept the repudiation and communicated that election within a reasonable time
  3. 3 Legal effect of both parties abandoning the agreement and appropriate court relief including release of escrowed shares

Ratio Decidendi

Respondent wrongfully attempted to repudiate the agreement, but the appellants did not elect to accept and communicate acceptance of that repudiation within a reasonable time; on the proved facts the proper inference is that both parties abandoned the agreement, so the respondent could not enforce the contract and the appropriate relief is dismissal of the respondent's action and declaration concerning the escrowed shares.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed. Court agreed with Court of Appeal that respondent wrongfully attempted repudiation but appellants failed to accept and communicate acceptance within a reasonable time; both parties abandoned the agreement; appellants entitled to release of 175 escrowed shares and are not entitled to return of...

Orders

  • Appeal dismissed with costs.
  • It is declared that the appellants are entitled to the 175 shares of Arctic Construction Limited placed in escrow and that the said shares are released from escrow.